## Facts

- Two consolidated actions alleged “take-home” asbestos exposure causing mesothelioma in household members of workers exposed at industrial worksites.
- In the Kesner action, a worker allegedly carried asbestos dust home on his clothing from an asbestos-using brake-lining manufacturer; his nephew later developed peritoneal mesothelioma after close contact with the worker while the worker wore work clothes.
- In the Haver action, a railroad worker allegedly carried asbestos fibers home on work clothing; his spouse allegedly inhaled fibers while handling and laundering the clothing and later died of mesothelioma.
- Plaintiffs sued employers/premises owners for negligence and premises liability, alleging failure to prevent offsite exposure through contaminated clothing and personal effects.

## Issues

1. Whether employers and premises owners owe a duty of ordinary care to prevent secondary (take-home) asbestos exposure to an employee’s household members.
2. If such a duty exists, how the class of protected plaintiffs should be limited to avoid indeterminate liability.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that employers and premises owners owe a duty of ordinary care that includes taking reasonable steps to prevent asbestos exposure carried offsite on workers’ bodies, clothing, or personal effects when such transmission to household members is reasonably foreseeable.
- The Court limited the duty to members of the worker’s household, excluding other foreseeable non-household contacts.
- The Court applied the same duty analysis to negligence and premises liability theories.
- The Court reversed the no-duty rulings and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- California Civil Code § 1714 establishes a general duty of ordinary care; categorical no-duty rules require strong countervailing public policy under the Rowland v. Christian factors.
- When take-home transmission of asbestos to household members is reasonably foreseeable, employers and landowners must use ordinary care to reduce that risk.
- Policy concerns about unlimited liability may justify limiting the duty’s scope by defining a bounded class of plaintiffs; here, the protected class is limited to household members.
- A worker’s act of returning home with contaminated clothing does not necessarily sever the relationship between a defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury when that mechanism of exposure is foreseeable.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a duty of ordinary care to prevent foreseeable take-home asbestos exposure but confined that duty to workers’ household members, reversing contrary rulings and allowing the consolidated claims to proceed on negligence and premises liability theories.


Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 5th 1132, 384 P.3d 283 (Cal. 2016)